At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

The mechanism by which we can weigh morality, that is to say how we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; this is also known as Utility. Jeremy Bentham explains "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question." (1) To stress this point, I repeat, actions are morally permissible in so much as they augment happiness.

Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it." (2) Because Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire, it is an appealing moral philosophy.

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

The mechanism by which we can weigh morality, that is to say how we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; this is also known as Utility. Jeremy Bentham explains "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question." (1) To stress this point, I repeat, actions are morally permissible in so much as they augment happiness.

Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it." (2) Because Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire, it is an appealing moral philosophy.

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

The mechanism by which we can weigh morality, that is to say how we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; this is also known as Utility. Jeremy Bentham explains "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question." (1) To stress this point, I repeat, actions are morally permissible in so much as they augment happiness.

Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it." (2) Because Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire, it is an appealing moral philosophy.

"Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn"t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. Objectivist theories tend to come in two sorts:(i) Duty Based Theories (or Deontological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is morally right or wrong is the kind of act it is.

E.g., Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) thought that all acts should be judged according to a rule he called the Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim [i.e., rule] whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." That is, he thought the only kind of act one should ever commit is one that could be willed to be a universal law.

(ii) Consequentialist Theories (or Teleological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is right or wrong are its consequences.

Utilitarianism is the best known sort of Consequentialism. Its best known defender is John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall. (The wrong thing to do is anything else.)"

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

The mechanism by which we can weigh morality, that is to say how we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; this is also known as Utility. Jeremy Bentham explains "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question." (1) To stress this point, I repeat, actions are morally permissible in so much as they augment happiness.

Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it." (2) Because Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire, it is an appealing moral philosophy.

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

There exist atheists who believe in objective morality.

There exist theists who don't believe in objective morality.

Addressing atheists is irrelevant to the question of objective morality.

I am not interested in your worthless opinions. I am asking atheists who deny objective morality exists to tell me how they know this. If you are unwilling to answer the question, shut up.

No opinions were presented. Just statements that demonstrate that your question is malformed. You are addressing moral nihilist and relativists, which is not a necessary position for an atheist to hold. Thank you for the heartwarming reply. :)

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

The mechanism by which we can weigh morality, that is to say how we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; this is also known as Utility. Jeremy Bentham explains "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question." (1) To stress this point, I repeat, actions are morally permissible in so much as they augment happiness.

What makes a party/person is happy is subjective and therefore the whole utilitarian argument fails.

Note: It made the Hitler happy to murder millions of people. Why is that objectively wrong if his ideas made the Nazi Party happy?

Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it." (2) Because Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire, it is an appealing moral philosophy.

Doing the moral thing is not always something that makes us happy. That is a huge flaw with your argument. Perhaps you are one of those folks who are moral to get pleasure. Isn't that selfish? And how does doing something for pleasure make something objective?

People have different ideas on how to please themselves. As you can imagine, being morally is hardly the only option. Your argument could literally be used to support immoral behavior.

See, no God necessary for objective morality.

No, that is just one really flawed argument for some reasons already explained.

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

The mechanism by which we can weigh morality, that is to say how we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; this is also known as Utility. Jeremy Bentham explains "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question." (1) To stress this point, I repeat, actions are morally permissible in so much as they augment happiness.

What makes a party/person is happy is subjective and therefore the whole utilitarian argument fails.

Note: It made the Hitler happy to murder millions of people. Why is that objectively wrong if his ideas made the Nazi Party happy?

Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it." (2) Because Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire, it is an appealing moral philosophy.

Doing the moral thing is not always something that makes us happy. That is a huge flaw with your argument. Perhaps you are one of those folks who are moral to get pleasure. Isn't that selfish? And how does doing something for pleasure make something objective?

People have different ideas on how to please themselves. As you can imagine, being morally is hardly the only option. Your argument could literally be used to support immoral behavior.

See, no God necessary for objective morality.

No, that is just one really flawed argument for some reasons already explained.

Again someone addressing this without thinking it through.... There are higher and lower pleasures. It is also based on the whole happiness not an individuals, thus it is based on quality and quantity of happiness of all.

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

The mechanism by which we can weigh morality, that is to say how we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; this is also known as Utility. Jeremy Bentham explains "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question." (1) To stress this point, I repeat, actions are morally permissible in so much as they augment happiness.

What makes a party/person is happy is subjective and therefore the whole utilitarian argument fails.

Note: It made the Hitler happy to murder millions of people. Why is that objectively wrong if his ideas made the Nazi Party happy?

Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it." (2) Because Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire, it is an appealing moral philosophy.

Doing the moral thing is not always something that makes us happy. That is a huge flaw with your argument. Perhaps you are one of those folks who are moral to get pleasure. Isn't that selfish? And how does doing something for pleasure make something objective?

People have different ideas on how to please themselves. As you can imagine, being morally is hardly the only option. Your argument could literally be used to support immoral behavior.

See, no God necessary for objective morality.

No, that is just one really flawed argument for some reasons already explained.

Again someone addressing this without thinking it through.... There are higher and lower pleasures. It is also based on the whole happiness not an individuals, thus it is based on quality and quantity of happiness of all.

I read what you said and you failed to address any point I made. The whole Nazi Party and countless other groups of people in the past have gathered together to do horrible things because it made them feel good.

And again, being moral does not make us happy all of the time.

But the even if moral actions did make people happy all the time (which is false), why care about making people happy? Why be moral? They would be the same question. Making people happy is a moral thing to do...but why be moral or make people happy?

I read what you said and you failed to address any point I made. The whole Nazi Party and countless other groups of people in the past have gathered together to do horrible things because it made them feel good.

But the "whole" Nazi party is not the Whole, you would have to account for Jews and the rest of the world as well.

But the even if moral actions did make people happy all the time (which is false), why care about making people happy? Why be moral? They would be the same question. Making people happy is a moral thing to do...but why be moral or make people happy?

I read what you said and you failed to address any point I made. The whole Nazi Party and countless other groups of people in the past have gathered together to do horrible things because it made them feel good.

But the "whole" Nazi party is not the Whole, you would have to account for Jews and the rest of the world as well.

The "whole" you are referring to has different opinions on what makes them happy and they also have different opinions on the extent to which they act (immoral/moral actions) in order to achieve that happiness.

So nothing about your view supports the existence of objective morality.

Why were the Nazi's objectively wrong according to you? Can you tell me that?

But the even if moral actions did make people happy all the time (which is false), why care about making people happy? Why be moral? They would be the same question. Making people happy is a moral thing to do...but why be moral or make people happy?

Because its desirable....

What is desirable is subjective.

Again, nothing about what you are talking about is objective.

And again, you still haven't answered the question.

Why be moral? Why make people happy? Why desire to make people happy? You can continue to rephrase the question anyway you want to but you still have to answer the question.

As much as I would like to help you understand I simply do not have time. Utilitarianism is an objective moral theory. It is recongnized as such by all credited philosophers. I have sourced it in previous comments.

As much as I would like to help you understand I simply do not have time. Utilitarianism is an objective moral theory. It is recongnized as such by all credited philosophers. I have sourced it in previous comments.

Sorry, thats all I have time for.

I am very familiar with the theory and there is a knock down argument against it (already provided in past comments).

By the way, most philosophers acknowledge that objective morality can only exist with a God. John Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Nietzsche, Hitchins, Dawkins, and etc...all agreed with that. By the way, they are/were all famous atheists.

In other words, the most respected philosophers agree with what I am saying (not that that makes me right).

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

The mechanism by which we can weigh morality, that is to say how we can determine what is morally permissible, is the greatest happiness principle; this is also known as Utility. Jeremy Bentham explains "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question." (1) To stress this point, I repeat, actions are morally permissible in so much as they augment happiness.

What makes a party/person is happy is subjective and therefore the whole utilitarian argument fails.

Note: It made the Hitler happy to murder millions of people. Why is that objectively wrong if his ideas made the Nazi Party happy?

Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality that all desires we have boil down to pleasure, and freedom from pain. All other things we desire, are extensions of these base desires. As John Stuart Mill states in his book entitled "Utilitarianism;" "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it." (2) Because Utilitarianism is grounded in the reality of human nature and desire, it is an appealing moral philosophy.

Doing the moral thing is not always something that makes us happy. That is a huge flaw with your argument. Perhaps you are one of those folks who are moral to get pleasure. Isn't that selfish? And how does doing something for pleasure make something objective?

People have different ideas on how to please themselves. As you can imagine, being morally is hardly the only option. Your argument could literally be used to support immoral behavior.

See, no God necessary for objective morality.

No, that is just one really flawed argument for some reasons already explained.

Again someone addressing this without thinking it through.... There are higher and lower pleasures. It is also based on the whole happiness not an individuals, thus it is based on quality and quantity of happiness of all.

I never get into moral or ethical discussions for very long because they are as productive as trying to determine what's the worlds favorite color. Suffice to say the conclusion of the above sentence is so far beyond a patently absurd feel good "nothingism" its almost laughable someone thinks this is a proposition that reaches a final solution. "Of all" , seriously, what idiot even had the notion that there would ever be a time in human history that someone would have a consensus that satisfies this absurd deflection. If an atheist who thinks morality is an actual thing they should be able to establish its validity based on how they view reality and the whole of existence. Simply put, justify the wrongness of murder using and applying atomic weight to the issue. After all. If all that is relevant to existence is that which we can detect then an atheist should detect the wrongness of the atoms involved in murder to explain why it is wrong. Explain why the atomic weight of that which comprises happiness determines its relevance to morality. And yes, this was sort of a joke....lol

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

An atheist doesn't know that there is no such thing as objective morality. It is only his personal opinion based on where he thinks the evidence points.If anyone says they KNOW objective morality exists, they're lying. The reason no atheist has answered your question is because the question itself is flawed.

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

An atheist doesn't know that there is no such thing as objective morality. It is only his personal opinion based on where he thinks the evidence points.If anyone says they KNOW objective morality exists, they're lying. The reason no atheist has answered your question is because the question itself is flawed.

Did this moron just imply that he knows every atheist that lives or has ever lived and that none of them deny that objective morality exists? ROFL These fools sure do love to expose their ignorance all over the place.

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

An atheist doesn't know that there is no such thing as objective morality. It is only his personal opinion based on where he thinks the evidence points.If anyone says they KNOW objective morality exists, they're lying. The reason no atheist has answered your question is because the question itself is flawed.

Did this moron just imply that he knows every atheist that lives or has ever lived and that none of them deny that objective morality exists?

No. Many atheists deny the existence of objective morality, but none of them KNOW that it doesn't exist. I believe that objective morality exists and I am fairly certain of that, but I don't KNOW that it exists.The way you phrased the question implies that you are questioning how atheists can be certain that objective morality doesn't exist. That's why the OP is flawed.

At 5/20/2016 7:50:01 PM, ViceRegent wrote:How does an atheist know there is no such thing as objective morality?

An atheist doesn't know that there is no such thing as objective morality. It is only his personal opinion based on where he thinks the evidence points.If anyone says they KNOW objective morality exists, they're lying. The reason no atheist has answered your question is because the question itself is flawed.

Did this moron just imply that he knows every atheist that lives or has ever lived and that none of them deny that objective morality exists?

No. Many atheists deny the existence of objective morality, but none of them KNOW that it doesn't exist. I believe that objective morality exists and I am fairly certain of that, but I don't KNOW that it exists.The way you phrased the question implies that you are questioning how atheists can be certain that objective morality doesn't exist. That's why the OP is flawed.

Did this moron just imply that he knows what every atheist that lives and has ever lived knows?

You can stop responding. I am no longer taking you serious, for not only are you narcissistic, but deluded to the core. And I do not argue with the mentally ill.